Author Topic: Help Identify this Mystery Component...  (Read 2442 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MedSpark

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: us
  • Innovation Ignited
    • MedSpark Medical Product Design and Development
Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« on: January 04, 2018, 05:04:09 am »
We are trying to identify a fried component on a system board for our Objet Eden 250 3D printer. Can anyone tell me what the component might be? It looks like there's some similar components on other areas of the board, but I have no way of knowing if this one is the same.

Here's a similar board on eBay for reference:


Also, what's the best way for us to clean up said board prior to soldering on the replacement component?

Thanks in advance for the assistance!
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 05:39:32 am by MedSpark »
 

Offline Cyberdragon

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2418
  • Country: us
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2018, 05:23:10 am »
Probably a tantalum capacitor as a filter for that switching regulator. Unfortunatly, it has exploded, erasing its value, you'll need a schematic to find what it was. Also, are those LEDs still on?! You should always remove power if a component explodes to prevent further damage. :-BROKE

Rubbing alcohol should get it of the soot, hopefully the board itself isn't burnt.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 05:25:19 am by Cyberdragon »
*BZZZZZZAAAAAP*
Voltamort strikes again!
Explodingus - someone who frequently causes accidental explosions
 
The following users thanked this post: MedSpark

Offline MedSpark

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: us
  • Innovation Ignited
    • MedSpark Medical Product Design and Development
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2018, 05:25:24 am »
Probably a tantalum capacitor as a filter for that switching regulator. Unfortunatly, it has exploded, erasing its value, you'll need a schematic to find what it was. Also, is that LED still on?! You should always remove power if a component explodes to prevent further damage. :-BROKE

Rubbing alcohol should get it of the soot, hopefully the board itself isn't burnt.
The reason that the LEDs are still on is that we still actively use this printer... Oddly enough it seems to work ok without that component! That said, we'd like to fix it ASAP.
 

Offline blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 14078
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics Guy
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2018, 05:38:21 am »
Good lesson to learn -- avoid using MnO2 based Ta caps. They are more explosive than aluminum can caps.
 

Offline MedSpark

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: us
  • Innovation Ignited
    • MedSpark Medical Product Design and Development
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2018, 05:42:35 am »
Probably a tantalum capacitor as a filter for that switching regulator...
I've posted another picture of a board being sold on eBay... Does that help at all?
 

Offline MedSpark

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: us
  • Innovation Ignited
    • MedSpark Medical Product Design and Development
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2018, 05:44:37 am »
... avoid using MnO2 based Ta caps...
I've posted another picture of a board being sold on eBay... Does that help at all?
 

Offline blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 14078
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics Guy
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2018, 05:44:47 am »
Probably a tantalum capacitor as a filter for that switching regulator...
I've posted another picture of a board being sold on eBay... Does that help at all?

Definitely a Ta cap.
 

Offline MedSpark

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: us
  • Innovation Ignited
    • MedSpark Medical Product Design and Development
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2018, 05:47:52 am »
Definitely a Ta cap.
Any idea what the value might be?
 

Offline blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 14078
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics Guy
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #8 on: January 04, 2018, 05:53:49 am »
Definitely a Ta cap.
Any idea what the value might be?

Looks to me an input cap of a buck converter. So what's the input voltage of that board? You can get this number by measuring the 6 pin header next to the blown cap.

Then multiply by 3, say, you have a 12V input, then you need a 35V replacement cap. Get the highest capacitance you can find that will fit. It looks like a 7343 (metric) size to me.
 

Offline MedSpark

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: us
  • Innovation Ignited
    • MedSpark Medical Product Design and Development
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #9 on: January 04, 2018, 06:32:12 am »
Looks to me an input cap of a buck converter. So what's the input voltage of that board? You can get this number by measuring the 6 pin header next to the blown cap.

Then multiply by 3, say, you have a 12V input, then you need a 35V replacement cap. Get the highest capacitance you can find that will fit. It looks like a 7343 (metric) size to me.
What are the potential risks associated with choosing the wrong capacitance?
 

Offline blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 14078
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics Guy
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #10 on: January 04, 2018, 06:36:18 am »
Looks to me an input cap of a buck converter. So what's the input voltage of that board? You can get this number by measuring the 6 pin header next to the blown cap.

Then multiply by 3, say, you have a 12V input, then you need a 35V replacement cap. Get the highest capacitance you can find that will fit. It looks like a 7343 (metric) size to me.
What are the potential risks associated with choosing the wrong capacitance?

As input capacitor, it must be able to handle inrush current and hence a higher withstanding voltage is recommended to reduce chance of breakdown and fire caused by high current.

Hazard is simple, explosion, just like the one you have.

Keep in mind that without proper inrush current limitation, just higher blocking voltage only reduces chance of explosion and fire, but not completely reduce it. A proper design will use some means of inrush limiting circuit or just use more resilient aluminum caps instead.
 

Offline amyk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6894
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #11 on: January 04, 2018, 06:38:04 am »
Ask the eBay seller for a closer picture of that area, "for confirmation before buying" ;)
 

Offline MedSpark

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: us
  • Innovation Ignited
    • MedSpark Medical Product Design and Development
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #12 on: January 04, 2018, 06:38:50 am »
As input capacitor, it must be able to handle inrush current and hence a higher withstanding voltage is recommended to reduce chance of breakdown and fire caused by high current.

Hazard is simple, explosion, just like the one you have.

Keep in mind that without proper inrush current limitation, just higher blocking voltage only reduces chance of explosion and fire, but not completely reduce it. A proper design will use some means of inrush limiting circuit or just use more resilient aluminum caps instead.
Any drawbacks to using an aluminum cap? Would I be able to find one in the same form-factor?
 

Offline MedSpark

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: us
  • Innovation Ignited
    • MedSpark Medical Product Design and Development
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #13 on: January 04, 2018, 06:41:50 am »
Ask the eBay seller for a closer picture of that area, "for confirmation before buying" ;)
Already did ask the 2 sellers who currently have one posted... Crossing my fingers!  ;D
 

Offline blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 14078
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics Guy
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #14 on: January 04, 2018, 06:53:00 am »
Any drawbacks to using an aluminum cap? Would I be able to find one in the same form-factor?

Not much for this application, but you won't find one in this size. You need to bodge one.
 

Offline MedSpark

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: us
  • Innovation Ignited
    • MedSpark Medical Product Design and Development
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #15 on: January 04, 2018, 08:56:41 am »
Ask the eBay seller for a closer picture of that area, "for confirmation before buying" ;)

Ok, check this out! Got a picture from one of the eBay sellers. I think these are the markings:

R+
686
25k
534


What do you make of it?

Any idea why our machine could be still operating with it fried?

Is there a more robust component to safely replace it with that will be less likely to fry again?
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 09:00:55 am by MedSpark »
 

Offline blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 14078
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics Guy
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #16 on: January 04, 2018, 09:04:42 am »
K is 10% accuracy, 25 is 25V, 686 is 68*10^6*10pF=68uF.
534 is probably date code, 2005 or 2015, week 34.
R+ is manufacturer product series, I have no idea which that is.

Edit: K with double bars is Kemet logo.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 09:44:23 am by blueskull »
 
The following users thanked this post: MedSpark

Offline MedSpark

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: us
  • Innovation Ignited
    • MedSpark Medical Product Design and Development
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #17 on: January 04, 2018, 09:06:24 am »
K is 10% accuracy, 25 is 25V, 686 is 68*10^6*10pF=68uF.
534 is probably date code, 2005 or 2015, week 34.
R+ is manufacturer product series, I have no idea which that is.

Looks like it's a KEMET branded component.

Here's the KEMET PDF: https://content.kemet.com/datasheets/KEM_T2009_T495.pdf.

I'm not sure what might be a more robust option to replace the existing component with. Any ideas?
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 09:17:38 am by MedSpark »
 

Offline blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 14078
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics Guy
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #18 on: January 04, 2018, 09:15:20 am »
K is 10% accuracy, 25 is 25V, 686 is 68*10^6*10pF=68uF.
534 is probably date code, 2005 or 2015, week 34.
R+ is manufacturer product series, I have no idea which that is.
So, what should I replace it with?

I did a bit more research, it seems like R+ denoted T495 series of surge robust tantalum caps, how ironic.
Therefore, I would just either replace with same part number and hope I won't get another bad so called surge robust cap, or I will just bodge a leaded aluminum cap.
 
The following users thanked this post: MedSpark

Offline blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 14078
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics Guy
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #19 on: January 04, 2018, 09:20:22 am »
Here's the part number: T495X686K025ATE200, there are also 125mR and 150mR versions, but I prefer a higher ESR to reduce inrush current.
This is a perfect example of higher grade (lower ESR) is not always better. I bet the 200mR version works better.
 

Offline MedSpark

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: us
  • Innovation Ignited
    • MedSpark Medical Product Design and Development
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #20 on: January 04, 2018, 09:21:06 am »
I did a bit more research, it seems like R+ denoted T495 series of surge robust tantalum caps, how ironic.
Therefore, I would just either replace with same part number and hope I won't get another bad so called surge robust cap, or I will just bodge a leaded aluminum cap.

Here's the KEMET PDF: https://content.kemet.com/datasheets/KEM_T2009_T495.pdf.

I'm not sure what might be a more robust option to replace the existing component with. Is it safe to replace it with a more robust leaded aluminum cap? For example, I'm really not familiar with component form-factors, so I have no idea what might even physically fit. I guess I should probably choose a component with a higher voltage rating, correct?
 

Offline blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 14078
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics Guy
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #21 on: January 04, 2018, 09:27:05 am »
I did a bit more research, it seems like R+ denoted T495 series of surge robust tantalum caps, how ironic.
Therefore, I would just either replace with same part number and hope I won't get another bad so called surge robust cap, or I will just bodge a leaded aluminum cap.

Here's the KEMET PDF: https://content.kemet.com/datasheets/KEM_T2009_T495.pdf.

I'm not sure what might be a more robust option to replace the existing component with. Is it safe to replace it with a more robust leaded aluminum cap? For example, I'm really not familiar with component form-factors, so I have no idea what might even physically fit. I guess I should probably choose a component with a higher voltage rating, correct?

There are aluminum or tantalum polymer caps that don't explode easily, but those have very low ESR. There is a risk that this behavior may cause inrush damage to your power supply or mess around with its control loop, so I would not recommend to replace them with a capacitor with stupidly low ESR, somewhere around a few mR. Those are good for output filtering capacitors (providing the SMPS designer knows what he is doing), not that good for input capacitors, especially not for board level input capacitors.

However, non polymer aluminum caps are never in such footprint, those 7343 package is for tantalum solid (MnO2) and tantalum/aluminum polymer capacitors only, you will never find a wet aluminum capacitor in such a size. Therefore, if you want to go for a wet capacitor, you need to bodge one instead of looking for a perfect fit. It won't happen.
 

Offline MedSpark

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: us
  • Innovation Ignited
    • MedSpark Medical Product Design and Development
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #22 on: January 04, 2018, 09:28:27 am »
Here's the part number: T495X686K025ATE200, there are also 125mR and 150mR versions, but I prefer a higher ESR to reduce inrush current.
This is a perfect example of higher grade (lower ESR) is not always better. I bet the 200mR version works better.
So, would the T495X686K025ATE125 be safer, as it has a higher Max Inrush Ripple Current (1149 vs 908 @25c and 1034 vs 817 @85c)? Is there anything else to consider? Or should I switch to a Leaded Aluminum cap? Or try to move up to 35v cap?
 

Offline MedSpark

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: us
  • Innovation Ignited
    • MedSpark Medical Product Design and Development
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #23 on: January 04, 2018, 09:30:33 am »

There are aluminum or tantalum polymer caps that don't explode easily, but those have very low ESR. There is a risk that this behavior may cause inrush damage to your power supply or mess around with its control loop, so I would not recommend to replace them with a capacitor with stupidly low ESR, somewhere around a few mR. Those are good for output filtering capacitors (providing the SMPS designer knows what he is doing), not that good for input capacitors, especially not for board level input capacitors.

However, non polymer aluminum caps are never in such footprint, those 7343 package is for tantalum solid (MnO2) and tantalum/aluminum polymer capacitors only, you will never find a wet aluminum capacitor in such a size. Therefore, if you want to go for a wet capacitor, you need to bodge one instead of looking for a perfect fit. It won't happen.
It's worth noting that the power supply powering this costs ~$13k to replace... So I definitely want to avoid that drama.
 

Offline blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 14078
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics Guy
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #24 on: January 04, 2018, 09:33:10 am »
Here's the part number: T495X686K025ATE200, there are also 125mR and 150mR versions, but I prefer a higher ESR to reduce inrush current.
This is a perfect example of higher grade (lower ESR) is not always better. I bet the 200mR version works better.
So, would the T495X686K025ATE125 be safer, as it has a higher Max Inrush Ripple Current (1149 vs 908 @25c and 1034 vs 817 @85c)? Is there anything else to consider? Or should I switch to a Leaded Aluminum cap? Or try to move up to 35v cap?

No. 12V/125mR=96A peak, 12V/200mR=60A peak. Since P=I2R, the 200mR version will have 37.5% lower peak internal inrush heating power compared with the 125mR version.
I would go with the 200mR one, and I don't think bad luck happens 2 in a row. Kemet knows what they are doing, so do the Stratasys people. I don't think the design is particularly bad, it's just bad luck.
 

Offline MedSpark

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: us
  • Innovation Ignited
    • MedSpark Medical Product Design and Development
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #25 on: January 04, 2018, 09:34:43 am »
Also, how did you determine that this was the T495X686K025ATE200 versus the T495D686025AE200, T495X686K025ATE125, T495X686K025ATE130, and T495X686K025ATE150?
 

Offline blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 14078
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics Guy
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #26 on: January 04, 2018, 09:43:44 am »
Also, how did you determine that this was the T495X686K025ATE200 versus the T495D686025AE200, T495X686K025ATE125, T495X686K025ATE130, and T495X686K025ATE150?

The size code is X, because D is much thinner, X is taller. This rules out T495D686025AE200. As for the other ones, I have no idea, but I think you should use a higher ESR one, so I picked the 200mR version for you.
 
The following users thanked this post: MedSpark

Offline MedSpark

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: us
  • Innovation Ignited
    • MedSpark Medical Product Design and Development
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #27 on: January 04, 2018, 09:52:05 am »
The size code is X, because D is much thinner, X is taller. This rules out T495D686025AE200. As for the other ones, I have no idea, but I think you should use a higher ESR one, so I picked the 200mR version for you.

Got it. That makes sense. Thank you for all the help!!!

Also, is there anything I should check to make sure there's not something else causing this that will make it fry again? Or do I just need to slap it in there and see how it does?
 

Offline blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 14078
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics Guy
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #28 on: January 04, 2018, 09:54:29 am »
The size code is X, because D is much thinner, X is taller. This rules out T495D686025AE200. As for the other ones, I have no idea, but I think you should use a higher ESR one, so I picked the 200mR version for you.

Got it. That makes sense. Thank you for all the help!!!

Also, is there anything I should check to make sure there's not something else causing this that will make it fry again? Or do I just need to slap it in there and see how it does?

If it blows up again, report to Stratasys as this can be a serious design flaw, and replace that with a 35V one or just leave it open. If it works fine, then that's great.
 
The following users thanked this post: MedSpark

Offline MedSpark

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: us
  • Innovation Ignited
    • MedSpark Medical Product Design and Development
Re: Help Identify this Mystery Component...
« Reply #29 on: January 04, 2018, 10:11:30 am »
If it blows up again, report to Stratasys as this can be a serious design flaw, and replace that with a 35V one or just leave it open. If it works fine, then that's great.
Thanks again! You were extremely helpful!!! I'm buying the T495X686K025ATE200 and I'll let you know if there's any fireworks. Ha
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf